Clinton will say: "With all the money Obama spent in PA, he could not win PA"

[DUyellow]

This is the real reason Senator Clinton and her team are making a big deal about Obama outspending them in PA, it isn't because they can not keep up with him on the ads. They believe they are going to win PA, probably right, and are going to say this over and over again. They want to make him look weak, instead of only by single digits.

[rug]

And?

[DUyellow]

2. The fact is that he closed a 20 point gap again... Showes more weakness in Clinton then Obama.

[rug]

9. Winning is Weakness. War is Peace. Up is Down.

[DUyellow]

16. you are talking about a battle, i am talk about the war.

note the word "AGAIN"

[rug]

19. OK, Sun Tzu, talk to me after Indiana.

I'll be happy to discuss it - again.

[DUyellow]

24. you don't have to be such a jerk.

[kwenu]

34. You can't be talking about the war because you'd have to acknowledge a Hillary win in PA changes

NOTHING!!!!!

[rug]

36. But I believe in change. I do, I do.

[rocktivity]

42. DING DING DING! Kwenu, you're our grand prize winner!

...(A) Hillary win in PA changes NOTHING!!!!!

And if her margin of victory is less than 20 points, she'll have less than nothing. Hillary needs at least 65% of the vote in PA, as well as in ALL the remaining contests, if she's serious about winning over enough superdelegates. So she's setting it up to make Obama's outspending her look bad no matter what the outcome is.

:headbang:
rocknation

[rug]

46. I thought she had to undergo open heart surgery without anesthesia to win.

:shrug:

[dchill]

52. No, you're thinking about that credibility implant...

she needs. There's no "heart" involved at all.

[tekisui]

20. I was impressed that Hillary got a million votes in each TX and in OH.

She had a lot against her. And, she does now. If she wins as expected, in PA, she will have earned the right to move ahead to the next contests.

I think she has plenty of support to take it through all the primary contests. I don't think she has the support to take it to the Convention or to take the Nomination.

[rug]

23. Me too. I think she'll be getting millions more votes out of the next ten elections.

You may well be right it's not enough.

[anamandujano]

1. It'll be more impressive when we get the actual figures. He ran

his lame @ss ads every 20 minutes (in the daytime too), possibly more frequently, in Texas and still didn't take the primary.

[GarbagemanLB]

3. Rush Republicans voting for Hillary will do that.

[DUyellow]

5. But he took the state! It is all about the delegates

[anamandujano]

8. Millions voted in the primary. Not so in the caucuses. She took the primary.

End of story. Full stop.

[tekisui]

14. Nearly 3 million voted in the Primary. Hillary won by 100,000.

Obama took the caucus and the delegate count, and the state.

Hillary didn't have the foresight or the organization to have a ground game to win the caucus. Full stop.

[PseudoIntellect]

15. End of story. Full stop.

No caucuses, no nothing. Just a primary. Because Hill won it. She didn't win the state, but only the primary counts. Caucuses obviously don't.

[kwenu]

38. Not if you're counting delegates.

[rocktivity]

49. Yep--caucuses and primaries are about getting the majority of the delegates, not the votes

which is what Obama did in Nevada and Texas without winning the popular vote.

:headbang:
rocknation

[dchill]

58. Haven't you heard? There's NOW a difference...

between ELECTED delegates and something the Clinton campaign is now calling "CAUCUS delegates." Evidently they don't count...
:crazy:

[PseudoIntellect]

64. "Caucuses are not elections."

:crazy:

[kwenu]

65. But delegates ARE delegates.

:dunce:

[RaleighNCDUer]

69. Too bad for her that the popular vote means squat.

It's the delegates that count.

She ran a great campaign in pursuit of the wrong goal.

[JeanGrey]

7. It doesn't matter. Hillary is finished, this is all just moot,

really.

[rug]

10. Why are you posting then,

really.

[JeanGrey]

74. Because I am constantly amazed at the Hillary apologists.

They remind me of those who think OJ didn't kill his wife.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

4. but he will win more delegates to add to his winning number

[DUyellow]

6. yup, i am just calling the spin before the spin is spun.

[AtomicKitten]

11. And he's making it impossible for her to overtake him in delegate count.

So, um, who's actually "winning?"

;)

[rug]

13. So, um, he can't get a majority.

Like, really.

[Colobo]

17. He's not trying to win. He's trying to make it close so that Hillary

can't overtake him in delegates.

[rug]

21. He's not trying? How much would he spend if he was trying?

[DUyellow]

27. I would focus more on how much time he is spending there instead of money.

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. Neither can she.

And...at present, he has 1415 out of 2687 pledged delegates. Fifty-two percent. And he not only can but WILL get a majority, inncluding superdelegates (you should check your math). 795 superdelegates plus 2687 pledged delegates (less MI and FL) = 3482. A majority requires 51% of that number (1741, which based on current projections, Obama will have following PA and NC). WHat neither candidate can attain, and what is required under party rules, is a supermajority of more than 63%.

[rug]

35. If you want to talk math, you shouldn't include a variable factor, the superdelagates.

Because if you do, you're pontificating, not counting, and you wouldn't want to do that, would you?

[Spider Jerusalem]

41. You certainly don't seem to have a problem with it.

and the fact remains that Obama will have a majority, by definition, come the convention. Not to mention that that 'variable factor' is less variable than you seem to think; the number of uncommitted superdelegates who have already made clear statements that they will support the candidate with the most delegates won in primary contests at the convention does not bode well for Hillary's prospects. She has, at this point, no chance whatever of leading in pledged delegates. None, nada, zip, zilch. (Obama has 52%, she has 45%, with 3% of the total remaining to be allocated.) She's seen a 20 point lead in Pennsylvania shrink to anywhere from 5% to within the margin of error within recent weeks, with 2 weeks remaining until the primary. She has a 20-point deficit in North Carolina. She's polling far behind in Oregon, and Montana. All of these things add up. The almost inescapable conclusion from these facts is that the chance of Hillary being the Democratic nominee isn't something you'd want to put money on.

[rug]

48. I bet you're good at sudoku.

[Spider Jerusalem]

12. That's an absurdist strategy, though.

After all, it's just as easy to say 'Senator Clinton's campaign outspent all the others at the beginning of this primary race; they spent one hundred and forty million dollars by Super Tuesday. Even with that kind of huge financial advantage, she was unable to secure the nomination when she expected to.' So who then looks weak? Combine the early financial advantages enjoyed by Clinton with her unrivalled name recognition and her close personal association with Bill Clinton, a successful and popular former President, and she still couldn't sew things up. It becomes rather clear from that exactly who the weaker candidate is, in my opinion (and much more importantly than my opinion, in the opinions of all the millions of voters who, when presented with the choice, chose not to vote for Senator Clinton).

[rug]

18. Well, with all the hype of the last three months, why can't he kill off the poor, weak thing?

[DUyellow]

22. you should relax, this OP wasn't about attacking anybody...

I was just saying this is was going to happen. Both campaigns spin. Saying that, I am noticing a lot of attention by Senator Clinton's campaign talking about how much money Obama is spending in PA. There has to be a reason why, and this is my observation. Every post isn't an anti Clinton post...

[JimGinPA]

33. He's Just Mad Because Hillary Stole His Coffee Pot

:evilgrin:

[rug]

40. Hey, it keeps everybody out of the office doing some work.

[JimGinPA]

53. LOL

[dchill]

54. She took his stuff?

That's SO Hillary.

[tekisui]

28. Because Hillary has a stong, unwavering core of support.

Her supporters do not give up on her, and I salute them.

I just hope that they will continue to support the Democratic Nominee as ardently in November, whomever it may be. They are dedicated and they are fighters.

[DUyellow]

32. 2nd that.

[Spider Jerusalem]

37. If Hillary Clinton were anyone but Hillary Clinton, she wouldn't still be in the running.

As it is, her campaign is dying the death of a thousand cuts. She has no chance at all. She's in the position of a boxer who's been comprehensively beaten but still keeps getting up at every bell rather than throwing in the towel, hoping for a miraculously lucky punch (or perhaps more aptly, an illegitimate win on points awarded by crooked judges; the first Holyfield-Lewis fight comes to mind).

[rug]

43. The first Marciano/Charles fight.

Brutal.

[AllentownJake]

26. The truth about the PA strategy

Is he's forcing her to spend a lot of money and time here. If what someone posted here was accurate and her net gain for March was 7 million in Primary dollars he's going to bankrupt her running in 6 media markets. He's forced her to open an office in every county in the state and put a team here. By the time it hits Indiana and NC...she's going to be past broke. She won't be able to fund her GOTV efforts there and even if he doesn't win here he's preparing her for the knockout blow in those two states.

[DUyellow]

31. That is a good observation.

[tekisui]

50. That explains why Bill has been jumping all over the country,

hitting every remaining state many times. He can afford to travel, now. He can get as many people signed up early, because the money won't be there later.

[AllentownJake]

56. The problem

Is that they don't sign people up at events that well or at least in Allentown they did a terrible job of capturing the info of people who showed up for the event.

[tekisui]

61. In Asheville, we had to fill out slips of paper to get in.

None of the info was required. When we went through the doors, they were just grabbing the papers.

[AllentownJake]

62. I'd go into detail

On how we do it...but I don't want to give them any ideas.

Lets just say that we are better at gathering supporter information.

[Cha]

55. Yeah, if it's accurate..

I would think all these clinton supporters would be sending her money and who knows how much the elton john concert will net her for unpaid bills.
My mind is still reeling that elton john cares so little about our country that he's helping out the Bosnian Liar.

"Wonder why Clinton claimed to have raised nearly $35 million in February, but more than $20 million of that haul wasn't available for the primary race? Pretty simple and truly Clinton-like slick: Hillary didn't expand her fundraising base … her mega-rich donors have all maxed out their $2,300 primary limit, but they donated money to Clinton's campaign anyway. So what's the problem? Well, since the donors had already maxed out, the $20 million can only be used during the general election campaign. Slick, huh? It makes it appear as though Hillary Clinton has raised a bunch of money, but she hasn't.

But there is more … it appears Hillary Clinton's claims of having raised $20 million in March, is really only $7 million. Slick … very slick! Indeed, it is Clinton slick.

When it comes to money and politics, looks can be deceiving. Take February's presidential fundraising receipts, for example. After losing 11 straight primary contests to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton rebounded–in the headlines, at least–with the Feb. 29 announcement that she had racked up $34.5 million in contributions for the month, her all-time record. The only problem? Candidates aren't actually required to disclose full fundraising information until the 20th of the following month. Fortunately for Clinton, not many folks took notice when she finally filed with the FEC on March 20. If they had, they would've discovered that only a third of Clinton's February cash-on-hand, $11.7 million, was designated for the primary campaign; the remaining $20-plus million was all general election funds, and would only be available if she won the Democratic nomination. What's more, they would've also learned that Clinton's campaign had closed the month with $8.7 million in outstanding debt–leaving her at the start of March with a measly $3 million in free dough for the battles ahead.

I bring this up because we've suddenly reached the end of another month (and the start of another money-maniacal news cycle)–and only by looking back at February can we see how bleak March looks for Clinton. As usual, her financial fate doesn't seem particularly dire on its face. According to the Politico's Ben Smith, a Clinton campaign source says the candidate raised about $20 million for the month–her second-best finish to date, which isn't shabby for period largely lacking in competitive primaries. But if February's tally revealed anything, it's that Clinton has been unable to expand her donor base far enough beyond the traditional networks of wealthy Democrats; the $23 million gap between primary and general election funds proved that many of these contributors had long given the $2,300 maximum donation for the primary, and were now providing an additional $2,300 for the general only to inflate Clinton's monthly total and spur positive coverage. Assuming the pattern holds, it's unlikely that Clinton raised more than $7 million that she can actually use against Obama–less, you'll notice, than last month's debt, which is probably still outstanding. (And that's not even counting the $5 million Clinton loaned her campaign at the end of January.) In any case, we won't know for sure until–you guessed it–April 20. On a conference call this morning, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson refused to confirm the $20 million figure and reminded reporters that the campaign would not release its numbers until required by law. "We will have the resources that we need to compete," said Wolfson. Not exactly a confidence booster". Newsweek
Read it all right HERE at Newsweek

http://www.progressivedailybeacon.com/?p=629
NOT THIS TIME


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5423002&mesg_id=5423203

[AllentownJake]

60. If every Clinton supporter on DU that is actively posting

Sent her $50 that would net her maybe $10,000? The people left here are the die hard of die hards..and they are falling everyday. I don't think she has the base to raise it. I could be wrong though.

[doublethink]

29. He's spending more money because he can and she can't.

He has it, she doesn't. End of story.

[Cha]

63. Right..no matter how many

ways she has to whine about it.

[Cha]

30. Obama could say that he got so many online

donations that he was able to spend more money in PA to help close the GAP.

[BlueIdaho]

39. Obama has

forced Hillary to spend money she doesn't have in places she dosen't really care about. On top of that now she is forced to pour money into Pennsylvania on an unprecedented scale - money her campaign doesn't have. Obama has a war chest like no other and he is bleeding her dry. HRC's campaign will end for the same reason all campaigns end - it will run out of money. As people smell the fear and failure they have stopped throwing good money after bad.

Its over - she's lost - deal with it.

[TLM]

44. Hillary would have spent just as much, or more than Obama...

If her campaign wasn't going broke due to eroding support.

If Hillary had as much support as obama, she'd have no problem spending as much as he has.

Obama spent more because he raised more.
He raised more because he has more Americans supporting him.



I remember her supporters here screaming and crying that she was going to beat Obama by 30 points in PA... that's now down to 3 or 4 points. And if her number keep falling at this rate, Obama might just pull off an upset.

[AllentownJake]

47. On April 22

Remember the new voter registration drive Obama did...that is the joker in the deck that is not being talked about or captured in the polls.

[kid a]

45. His reply: With all the money you're paying Mark Penn, you should have it wrapped up. nt

[Zachstar]

51. And that point will fail like a box of rocks.

The moment they will say that it will be exposed even more that she (Assuming the highly likely scnerio where she gains less than the delegates needed to reduce the margins needed for upcoming states to tie overall) Did not gain enough delegates overall and that she is still WAY down in delegates.

Clinton is smarter than that. Saying that crap afterwards opens the floodgates.

[Yes We Did]

57. And I'll say that with all the money tide up in vote rigging he couldn't win.

machine politics at play in PA... now that Diebold is on the scene.

[berni_mccoy]

59. And with $101,600 PER DAY to Brilliant Strategist Mark Penn, SHE COULDN'T WIN

[Skip Intro]

66. And she would be correct.

:shrug:

[OzarkDem]

67. He spent a lot in Ohio and still lost

Spending a lot of money doesn't make you a better candidate.

[Skwmom]

73. Clinton received MILLIONS in free press from the media.

Free press that included promoting Clinton and trashing Obama. Plus, the Carlye Group (remember them) went and bought up a lot of the local media in Ohio after the 2000 election. It doesn't require a genius to figure out which candidate they promoted.

[RBInMaine]

68. Same PHONY spin in OH. She has HUGE machine and demographic advantages going in.

Obama MUST outspend to get the name recognition and to have a hope of overcoming Hillary's
long-standing structural advantages. Also, he can spend more because he gets more with a more motivated donor base, which they don't like to mention.

[Bensthename]

70. Obama will talk about how was down over 20 points. And the race continues.

[bowens43]

71. There's nothing Hillary won't say......

the woman is nothing but lies , distortions and spin. She is the poster child for all that is wrong with politics in America today.

[Skwmom]

72. If you add in the imputed value of free media promoting of Clinton and attacking Obama, I'm sure

that Clinton would be the one who is spending the most in PA.

[BzaDem]

75. And she will be right. He will lose PA now and in November. And we will lose the GE because of it.